A.M. No. RTJ-04-1850 ; July 14, 2004
JUDGE LORINDA T. MUPAS, petitioner, vs. JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Lorinda T. Mupas, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dasmariñas, Cavite, charged Executive Judge Dolores L. Español of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Usurpation of Authority. The case stemmed from three criminal complaints for syndicated estafa filed with the MTC. Complainant Judge conducted a preliminary investigation, issued warrants of arrest with no bail recommended, and was actively handling related motions, including a petition for bail and a motion to transfer an accused from the municipal to the provincial jail.
While these matters were pending before the MTC, respondent Judge Español, acting in her capacity as Executive Judge, issued two orders on September 4, 2001. The first order directed the transfer of the accused Eva Malihan to the provincial jail, and the second order directed the Commissioner on Immigration to issue a hold-departure order against the same accused. Respondent claimed authority under Section 25, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the transfer and under Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 for the hold-departure order, arguing she acted to prevent a frustration of justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Dolores L. Español is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing the transfer and hold-departure orders in criminal cases pending preliminary investigation before another court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court held that respondent’s issuance of the orders constituted undue interference with cases pending before the MTC of Dasmariñas. The legal logic is clear: jurisdiction over the criminal cases, including ancillary incidents like detention and bail, was vested in the MTC judge conducting the preliminary investigation. Respondent’s reliance on Section 25, Rule 114 was misplaced, as the provision on supervision of detainees does not grant authority to override the presiding judge’s control over a pending case. Her act of ordering the accused’s transfer usurped the MTC judge’s authority.
Furthermore, the issuance of the hold-departure order was a patent violation of Circular No. 39-97, which explicitly authorizes only Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their jurisdiction to issue such orders. The cases were not yet filed with the RTC, as they were still under preliminary investigation. By issuing these orders, respondent demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of basic jurisdictional rules and procedural mandates. Considering the incident occurred before the effectivity of a stricter rule amendment, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). A supplemental complaint regarding other issues was ordered consolidated with a separate pending administrative case.